How to Review a PaperHow to Review a Paper

Prof. Dr. Guowang XuElsevier Author Workshop

Apr. 17, 2009

2

Opening QuestionOpening Question

• Why is peer review a part of the scholarly publishing process?

3

ObjectivesObjectives

• What is the history of peer review and what role does it serve?

• Why should I consider being a reviewer?

• How do I carry out a proper and thorough review?

What is the history of peer review and What is the history of peer review and what role does it serve?what role does it serve?

5

Background on Peer ReviewBackground on Peer Review

• Cornerstone of the whole scholarly publication system• Maintains integrity in the advancement of science• Well-established process over 300 years old

6

What is Peer Review?What is Peer Review?

Pre-SubmissionPeer Review

Prod

uctio

n

Publication

Post

Publication

Aut

hors

Reviewers

Editor

Peer Review has two key functions:

• Acts as a filter by ensuring only good research is published. Helps to determine validity, significance and originality

• Improves the quality of the research submitted for publication by giving reviewers the opportunity to suggest improvements

7

Different Types of Peer ReviewDifferent Types of Peer Review

1. “Single blind” peer review2. “Double blind” peer review3. Open peer review NOT DISCLOSED

“ And the reviewer is… ”

POST-PUBLICATION

Publishing Research Consortium

Who conducts reviews and whyWho conducts reviews and why do do they do itthey do it??

9

Who Conducts Reviews?Who Conducts Reviews?

• Scientific experts in specific fields and topics• Young, old, and mid-career• Average number of completed reviews is 8 per

year*

* “Peer Review in Scholarly Journals – perspective on the scholarly community: an international study”. M Ware and M Monkman. Publishing Research Consortium

10

Why Do Reviewers Review?Why Do Reviewers Review?

• Fulfill an academic ‘duty’• Keep up-to-date with latest developments• Helps with their own research • Build associations with prestigious journals

and editors• Remain aware of new research• Develop one’s career

11

Considerations upon being asked to Considerations upon being asked to reviewreview

• Expertise/ competence to review the article

• Necessary amount of time– Reviewing can be time consuming– Deadline stipulated by Editor may be soon

• Conflicts of Interest– Examples:

• if you work in the same department or institute as one of the authors

• worked on a paper previously with an author • have a professional or financial connection to

the article

Sample invitation to review

Stipulated deadline

Specific reviewing

instructions

Invitation to review and mission of the journal

How do I carry out a proper and How do I carry out a proper and thorough review?thorough review?

13

Overview of Peer Review ProcessOverview of Peer Review Process

• Possible reviewer recommendations– Rejected due to poor quality, or out of scope

– Accept without revision

– Accept, but needs revision either:• Minor• Moderate• Major

Article Submitted

Initial Decision by Editor

Confirmation of Receipt

Decide to Review

Reviewers Assigned

Reviewers Accept Invite

Reviews Completed

Reject

Accept

Notification to Author

Revise

Article sent to Publisher

AcceptRevise

Revision Received

Revision Checked

Reject

14

Conducting the Review Conducting the Review Comments to Editor: Comments to Editor:

15

Comments to Author: Comments to Author: In this paper, in order to control the quality, standard fingerprint of P. cablin collected from different regions

was developed by using GC-MS. Nine compounds including β-patchoulene, caryophyllene, α-guaiene, seychellene, β-guaiene, δ-guaiene, spathulenol, patchouli alcohol and pogostone were identified among ten main peaks in P. cablin. Hierarchical clustering analysis based on characteristics of 10 investigated peaks in GC profiles showed that 18 samples were divided into three main clusters, patchouliol-type, pogostone-type and an interim-type that was the one between the two chemotypes. The simulative mean chromatogram for the three types P. cablin was generated using the Computer Aided Similarity Evaluation System.

1. It's well known in China that the fingerprint can be used to control the quality of TCMs. In P. cablin volatile oil, normally, there are several tens of peaks based on 1D GC or hundreds of peaks on GCxGC (see following literature 1), but in this paper, authors used only 10 peaks to investigate the fingerprint, information content is not enough. Authors didn't say why they didn't make use of the peaks with the retention times longer than 36 min.

2. In Table 2 authors used the relative content (%) of investigated compounds in Pogostemon cablin. They assigned the total relative content of 10 peaks is 100%, this is not suitable because there are many peaks in volatile oil. The better mode is using relative content of total volatile component peaks.

3. The manuscript is not well organized. For example, in Legends, peak identification information in Figure 1 is repeated with Table 1, and peak 9 and peak 10 are not corresponded. The sample information in the legends of Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 is totally repeated with the footnote in Table 2.

4. The references haven't been well cited. Perhaps following relative literatures should be cited,1) Wu J, Lu X, Tang W, et al. Application of comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography-time-of-flight mass spectrometry in the analysis of volatile oil of traditional Chinese medicines. J Chromatogr A (Netherlands), Apr 23 2004, 1034(1-2) p199-2052) Li W, Wei G, Pan CM, et al. [Investigation on the influential factors of the volatile oil and main constituent content in Pogostemon cablin] ZhongguoZhong Yao Za Zhi (China), Jan 2004, 29(1) p28-313) Tian J, Lu X, Yang J, et al. [Multidimensional separations used in pharmaceutical and biological fields] Se Pu (China), Jan 2005, 23(1) p32-64) Hu HY, Peng JF, Huang SL, et al.[Study on purification technology of patchouly oil with molecular distillation] Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi (China), Apr 2004, 29(4) p320-2, 3795) Luo J, Guo X, Feng Y [Constituents analysis on volatile oil of Pogostemon cablin from different collection time cultivated in Hainan] Zhong Yao Cai(China), Jan 2002, 25(1) p21-36) Li W, Pan C, Xu H, et al.[The observation and comparison of Pogostemon cablin from different habitats]Zhong Yao Cai (China), Jul 2002, 25(7) p463-57) Guo X, Feng Y, Luo J [Re-study on characteristic fingerprint of volatile oil from Herba Pogostemonis by GC] Zhong Yao Cai (China), Dec 2004, 27(12) p903-8

Reviewer Recommendation Term: Requires major revision

Summarize the article

Explain and support the judgments

16

• Sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication?

• Adds to the canon of knowledge? • Answers an important research question?• Satisfies the journal’s standards?• Falls in the top 25% of papers in this field?• A literature scan of review articles can help the

reviewer determine originality

Conducting the Review Conducting the Review -- OriginalityOriginality

17

Key sections are included and are laid out clearly

References

Discussion/Conclusion

ResultsMethodologyIntroduction

AbstractTitle Title

• Does it clearly describe the article?Abstract• Does it reflect what was done and what the major findings

were?Introduction• Does it clearly state the problem being investigated and

accurately describe what the author hopes to achieve? • Does it summarize relevant research to provide context?• Does it explain what findings of others, if any, are being

challenged or extended?

Methodology• Does it accurately explain how the data was collected? • Is the design suitable for answering the question posed?• Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the

research? • Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these

ordered in a meaningful way? • If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? • Was the sampling appropriate? • Have the equipment and materials been adequately

described?• Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded;

has the author been precise in describing measurements?

Results• Clearly laid out and in a logical sequence? • Has the appropriate analysis been conducted? • Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with

statistics advise the editor when you submit your report. • If any interpretation has been included in this section – it

should not be

• Discussion/ Conclusion• Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they

seem reasonable? • Have the authors indicated how the results relate to

expectations and to earlier research? • Does the article support or contradict previous theories?• Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the

body of scientific knowledge forward?

References/Previous Research• If the article builds upon previous research does it reference

that work appropriately? • Are there any important works that have been omitted? • Are the references accurate?

Conducting the Review Conducting the Review -- StructureStructure

18

• Relevant and important• Consistency• Color• Caption length and appropriateness• Figures describe the data accurately

Conducting the Review Conducting the Review –– Tables & FiguresTables & Figures

Fig.3. FE-SEM images of RFP-50 at 1,0000×

19

Conducting the Review Conducting the Review –– Ethical IssuesEthical Issues

• Plagiarism• Fraud• Medical ethical • concerns

20

Sending Your Report to the EditorSending Your Report to the Editor

• Anticipate the deadline

• Summarize the article at the top of your report

• The report should be comprehensive

• Explain and support your judgments

• Make a distinction between your own opinions and your comments based on data

• Be courteous and constructive

21

Sample PaperSample Paper

22

ReviewerReviewer’’s Invitations Invitation

23

Review process

24

25

Submit review result

26

27

Editor decision -1

28

Editor decision -2

29

AuthorAuthor’’s Revisions to Detailed Commentss Revisions to Detailed Comments

30

31

Final ArticleFinal Article

32

SummarySummary

• What is the history of peer review and what role does it serve?– Peer review is the cornerstone of the scholarly publication process– Filters out good research and improves it

• Why should I consider being a reviewer?– Reviewing can be a career building activity that also keeps one in touch

with the latest research in the field

• How do I carry out a proper and thorough review?– Analyze the article for its originality, structure, and ethical sufficiency– Provide detailed, constructive comments and communicate clearly with

the Editor